The Instigator
startrekfan1324
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
mongoosecake
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Christianity and Science can coexist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,569 times Debate No: 13180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

startrekfan1324

Pro

It is a common misconception that because a person is religious, namely Christian, they must also deny evolution, old-earth theory, and many other scientific principles. I don't pretend to know everything about religion or science. Far from it. All I am saying is that there is nothing in the Bible, (for the purposes of this debate we will assume the Judeo-Christian God exists), that denies Evolution, neither is there anything in the Bible that specifically states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Many parts of the Bible are written in parable and metaphor. Those parts require examination from a literary perspective. The Bible is holy, but it is also a book.

Don't mistake my position for atheism. I am a Christian, I also believe in the principles of logic and science. I think they are God's tools for shaping his universe.

I won't specify any burden of proof. It's my belief that in any debate, both sides must act as though they are burdened in order to sufficiently prove their point.

P.S. (I'm a noob. Go easy on me, please? :))
mongoosecake

Con

This is my first debate.

The question is (at least in my understanding of my opponents opening statement) whether the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of science can both be true at the same time in that they won't conflict with each other and can co-exist. Please clarify if this is not the argument. I was also told that, "for the purposes of the debate we will assume the Judeo-Christian God exists." This makes my argument only a little more difficult as I will explain. Normally I would just prove the Judeo-Christian God didn't exist and therefore show that science and Christianity can't possibly be true together since Christianity is not true at all. However, you have asked me to assume the god of the bible exists which I will do.
You made the claim that the Bible could be interpreted as a parable or metaphor, but if we're assuming the God of the Bible is true let's see if we can make that claim.
First, assuming God is true, let's establish whether the bible is open to interpretation as a parable or metaphor. According to the bible, which is also claimed to be God's word, it is not intended to be either a parable or a metaphor.
Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"
Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is flawless"
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Now I have made my case that the scriptures in the bible were meant by the bible to taken literally as the word of God.
Now that I have established that the bible is according to its scriptures "without flaw," I can argue specific passages which contain inaccuracies (or accuracies if I'm still assuming God is true) and conflicts with current scientific theories. I will clear up any problems you have in the next round and will begin with Genesis and it's problems with concern to current scientific theories.

I greatly look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
startrekfan1324

Pro

Good Luck, Con.

The main point of my argument is that many parts of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically. In analysis of the scriptures you used, I don't see how any of them say that the Bible cannot be taken metaphorically.

Under normal circumstances, I would use logic to try to prove God's existence, but that is truly irrelevant to this debate,
as we are debating the ability of Christianity and Science to coexist, assuming they are both valid.

Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"
-The Bible is eternal and stands firm. That does not mean it can't be taken metaphorically. The Bible is a beautiful piece of literature, with wonderful use of symbolism. That doesn't make it any less eternal or valid.

Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is flawless"
-A literal translation is no less flawed than a metaphoric translation, and in some cases more so. For example,
Gen 3:24: "So he drove out the man and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword
which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life"
-I don't really believe that God sent down a physical flaming sword after the expulsion from Paradise. People have mapped the area where the Garden of Eden was. The Bible offers the location between some rivers, the names of which I am not familiar with, but that area today is a desert. Desert = hot, dry, FLAMING.
That was just one interpretation.

2 Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
-Metaphors are sometimes more useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training than literal translations. They offer a new perspective on things. Also, you must keep in mind that the Bible was written by prophets, for shepherd's who knew no science at all. You try explaining sub quantum physics to a herder.

I look forward to your reply, Con.
mongoosecake

Con

Lets settle something. You say there are parables in the bible not meant to be taken literally but you provide NO proof in the bible where it says that they aren't meant to be taken literally. Then I'm just going to throw this out there "The parts of Greek mythology that are unscientific are meant to be read as metaphors."

And I have shown the bible was supposed to be take literally. You said the burden of proof was equal, but so far all you've said is parts of the bible CAN be read as metaphors and parables with no proof in the scripture to back you up . The apostles wrote it as literal and People did take it literally past the dark ages, and it's because it claims it's the word of God. Then you go to my examples and misquote and say they are metaphors which shows you don't even know what a metaphor is. I stand by my proofs.

Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm. Eternal= unchanging, immutable= people like you should stop trying to change it.
Every word of God is flawless. "A literal translation is no less flawed than a metaphor." I don't care if it doesn't make sense it's the claim he makes. God gives his word that it's flawless so we must judge it as such. It's like if I said "My word is flawless" and then said "Hitler and the Nazis won world war II." Then you would be like ‘Your word can be read as a metaphor.' And I would say but it is NOT INTENDED to be.
You say, "metaphors are God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Metaphors are not useful in CORRECTING facts + it didn't say all "metaphors" are useful for all that stuff it said all SCRIPTURE. STOP MISQUOTING THE WORDS THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME. If it was not meant to be taken as a parable then jesus wouldn't believe it.

Jesus said the worldwide flood actually happened. Either he is right or bearing false witness (a sin) if he's wrong according to scientists. See Math 24:38-39 for proof. See a conflict between science and religion
Debate Round No. 2
startrekfan1324

Pro

startrekfan1324 forfeited this round.
mongoosecake

Con

My opponent has forfeited his round. He must see my point. I have already shown that according to God's word, the bible is mean to be taken literally and, I will spend my last round presenting a few additional inconsistencies the bible and science have with one another.

Genesis 2:7 says the Lord made man in his current form by making him from dust. If we take this literally, as I have proven we have to then there is conflict between that and science because the theory of evolution claims man evolved from apes over millions of years and wasn't created from dust in his current form. (Sources http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...) and (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Further the bible claims God made the earth before the stars, Gen 1 14-19. But this is asinine because science tells us the oldest stars age is 13.2 biilion years old (http://www.physorg.com...) and the earths age is only 4.54 billion years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Finally, concerning the flood, there is not enough water in the atmosphere to fill the entire planet. Also inbreeding with only two animals to start would wipe out every creature from existence due to chromosomal defects. (http://members.shaw.ca...)

I know I probably didn't even have to make further arguments since my opponents not even convinced of his case anymore, but I thought I would just put the nail in the coffin. This is extremely poor behavior from my opponent. I have shown the bible is not consistent with current scientific theories. Both accounts of reality are conflicting and therefore both cannot be true. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
Thank you, mongoosecake. I like to debate for fun. Not to win. I mean, a debate is supposed to be a place where people meet to discuss opposing views. I felt that you were making it unnecessarily personal. Plus, I should have made the debate longer than 2000 characters. I thought my opinion wasn't expressed clear enough. Also, I would like to apologize for any hostility I may have appeared to have. Even though I don't agree with him, I would ask that anyone who reads this vote con. He had the better debate. Fair and square.
Posted by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
Startrekfan1324, I'm sorry if I was mean it was not my intention. I think I am just being too competitive and not thinking of some of the things I may have said. You're probably right I was probably a little bit overboard on this so my bad. I encourage people who read this comment to please give points to my opponent for conduct as he has conducted himself better than I have by far.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
P.S. I'm still very convinced of my point. I accidentally forgot to post my debate. I actually have something called "a life."
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
I'm not angry. Just frustrated. I honestly don't care if I win.

Childish insults.- "I'll explain more in my argument which I won't skip out on. _Unlike some other people in this debate_."

"immutable= _people like you_ should stop trying to change it."

"We need more than 2000 words if we debate again by the way. I have trouble correcting all your misquotes with only 2000."

Misquote. "metaphors are God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I never said it. never implied it.

We need more than 2000 words if we debate again by the way. I have trouble correcting all you"r misquotes with only 2000."

How have you been pretty nice? Explain. Show me where I misquoted you. Explain. Not being sarcastic. Making a request.

I explained that I thought I had posted it, and made a mistake, yet you continue to berate me about
it.

"Also, I think I was plenty nice. I'm not the one skipping out on rounds of the debate."

I know very well that I am gong to lose. I may have had bad conduct. I may have had a less-than-quality debate. That doesn't give you the right to be so high-and-mighty.

I sincerely apologize for any problems you may have with me, my debate, or my comments. See. I can admit when _I'm_ wrong.
Posted by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
Dude, I honestly don't have to respond to this but I am. You sound angry for some reason. Although I don't have to do anything you tell me since you forfeited your round, I will explain the flood's problems in my arguments. "Childish insults" where? I think I have been pretty nice to you. You're the only one being mean here.

Please stop posting your argument in the comments. This is very bad conduct.

I once again ask everyone who has read the comments to please disregard any arguments made by startrekfan1324. He should have made these in the debate.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
I told you, I thought I had posted it! I made a mistake. I'm sorry that all of the human race can't be as perfect as you, of course, are. And if you think that making childish little insults because you disagree with my debate or don't find it of quality is "plenty nice", then you obviously have never been in a civilized debate before. I do ask that you point out in my debate EXACTLY where I "misquoted" you when, in fact, you blatantly misquoted me as saying,"metaphors are God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Please look on my debate comment and copy and paste where I said those exact words, in that order, into your next reply. Please show me the data on HOW scientists have proven that the flood couldn't have happened and how 2 animals of a species could repopulate the earth. Science and God can coexist, but miracles are not impossible. If they weren't, then this debate would be pointless because God wouldn't exist and this debate was based under the assumption that the Judeo-Christian god exists.

If this was you're first debate, I hope you learn how to be less pretentious in the future.
Posted by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
I'll explain more in my argument which I won't skip out on. Unlike some other people in this debate.
Posted by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
You didn't post you're argument. I ask everyone to disregard your comment as it doesn't count as part of our debate. Scientists have demonstrated their has been no flood above the highest mountains (everest). Also it didn't happen because it's impossible for only two of each kind of animal to repopulate the planet. Also, I think I was plenty nice. I'm not the one skipping out on rounds of the debate.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
Dang! I swear I posted my rebuttal on this a couple days ago! Must not have without realizing it. Just a shortened version, Point out where I misquoted you, The flood isn't scientifically proven NOT to have happened, and please be more civil next time. You seemed a bit insulting.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
"He's a theist on this site. He has similar beliefs to you."

Win. :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
startrekfan1324mongoosecakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sources and upheld his BOP while Pro simply made assertions.
Vote Placed by MikeNovotny 6 years ago
MikeNovotny
startrekfan1324mongoosecakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
startrekfan1324mongoosecakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
startrekfan1324mongoosecakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14